• Announcements

    • HEAVY265

      Attention Soldiers Operation Fury Needs you!   02/20/2020

      Attention All Soldiers, Operation Fury needs you.  You need to choose a side and sign up.  
      For more intel on Operation Fury Please click HERE Please go to Special Event Forum (here), And sign up for allied or axis.
      This will be a CRS Lead event on both sides.  Xoom will be heading up the axis side and Heavy265 will be heading up the Allied side. This will be for bragging rights.
      Why are we asking players to sign up you ask. We are trying for a role play experience.   We want this to be a true realistic event.  
      So get up and sign up and let's make this the best event ever!!!!!!!!!!
      Give me your war cry, grrrrrrrrrrrrr
      Heavy265 **out**
kareca

CRS we can not play without HC?

47 posts in this topic

Mo, I know how much you hate HC.

I like it because it lets me help people. I'm not great on the map, but I can do admin stuff as well, like awards.

I have to wonder what the game will be like without any type of player command structure though. You and others hate what we have, but how many actually viable alternatives do we have?

If we continue having brigades, someone has to move them. If we keep the AO system, how does it get handled? Do we use a voting system for everything? Does the system simply work automatically without player input? (I can see that going well with the players)

People have suggested the town supply system and no AOs... But without coordinated AOs, I have to wonder how things will go. Will we just have a whole bunch of towns being capped and every player and squad with their own agendas? Personally I see a lot of ninja softcaps.

I have heard how in the old days some players would log on and never see anyone from their side for hours.

I have heard how some folks would spend a day or two overstocking a town just to set it up for an attack.. I can't imagine enjoying that in any way. I can imagine logging on and hearing that we should be focusing on driving tanks from one town to another for hours... I am loyal to my side, but that would be logoff time for me.

I just hope if they get rid of HC they figure out how to keep the sides coordinated. And Please don't say squads...They can be great, but if left to their own devices and command structure, I don't know how many would really coordinate and work together.

I hope we can find that viable alternative that keeps us focused on working together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To some it's a burden, for sure, but I know some HC who love it, who love to be in charge and play chess with the brigades.

It can be fun, especially when you are rolling. But for the most part it's a burden even for HC like me that really enjoy the strategic/operational side of things. The biggest source of enjoyment I get out of being MOIC (besides rolling) is that I am filling a need.

Half the HC in the game don't understand the strategic part of the game, who are you kidding?

As for better players, LOL.

I would agree with that. But at least half the PB in the game doesn't understand it either, if not more. I think the point pulfer was trying to make is that AHC/GHC tend to have a higher concentration of people who know the map than people who don't.

But yeah, today's HCs are nothing like the map movers of the past. Back then, both sides couldn't get away with half the crap they get away with now. The mistakes current HCs make and the risks they take would be so quickly taken advantage of. The only reason neither side is learning is because it's equally true for both sides.

This goes back to the point I was making earlier about HC being a burden. 90% of the time I log in, I see something (usually many things actually) that need to be fixed, and the time required to fix the brigades is on the order of hours.

Also Moe, do you have any HC experience? And no this is not a pitch for you to sign up lol. I'm just curious.

Edited by capco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game could be played without high command if players were able to vote with their feet to trigger town capture, and there was a standard spawn list in reach town. So no one needed to dictate AOs or brigade positions. There would still be strategic movement though with players bringing equipment from the rear to the front line, actually this would have more depth than the current system because the terrain and distance between towns would matter instead of the number of town links.

Community-wise every positive aspect that you get from HC you can also get from leading a large squad. In fact the organization, the level of play and the player investment in a typical MMO guild let alone something like a large EVE online corp blows HC out of the water. The good leaders will have no problem going to an open game world without HC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The game could be played without high command if players were able to vote with their feet to trigger town capture, and there was a standard spawn list in reach town. So no one needed to dictate AOs or brigade positions. There would still be strategic movement though with players bringing equipment from the rear to the front line, actually this would have more depth than the current system because the terrain and distance between towns would matter instead of the number of town links.

Community-wise every positive aspect that you get from HC you can also get from leading a large squad. In fact the organization, the level of play and the player investment in a typical MMO guild let alone something like a large EVE online corp blows HC out of the water. The good leaders will have no problem going to an open game world without HC.

This reminds me of a few instances in the distant past when in one case I "sparked" a town capture just by capping something in a town...which eventually developed into a full fledged battle in response to that capping.

I am not sure just what is the best way..but having supply in each town and having each town potentially a target seemed to let those with the initiative act upon it...perhaps a big battle wouldn't happen...perhaps it would end up being 1vs1 in a town...(still potentially fun btw).

I know dropping players numbers plays into this (why there became AO's etc..??) so I am not sure what the answer is.

I don't mind having a designated attack/defence point....but being able to trigger an attack in some other way than relying on HC...would seem desirable..though not sure how that would work.

Best to you all...In peru now...speaking spanish and enjoying the culture. (back in a few months)

cheers

Edited by elfin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The game could be played without high command if players were able to vote with their feet to trigger town capture, and there was a standard spawn list in reach town. So no one needed to dictate AOs or brigade positions. There would still be strategic movement though with players bringing equipment from the rear to the front line, actually this would have more depth than the current system because the terrain and distance between towns would matter instead of the number of town links.

Community-wise every positive aspect that you get from HC you can also get from leading a large squad. In fact the organization, the level of play and the player investment in a typical MMO guild let alone something like a large EVE online corp blows HC out of the water. The good leaders will have no problem going to an open game world without HC.

OK.. please explain how there will be player coordination if there are no leaders except for Squad leaders, and there is no guarantee that squads will work together.

Will the culture of the game change so that non-Squad players are left out in the cold? We can't make anyone join a Squad, no matter how much some squad people would like to see that happen. And there are LOT of solo players, or players who just want to play with a buddy or two.

Your EVE statement sort of reinforces my question. In EVE there is no real reason for corporations to work together. It is not just a two sided war environment. Each corp, at the end of the day, is only really out for itself. This is a WWII game. It will never be a game where each group is just out for itself.

I have heard that in the past, some squads tried to dominate the game by suggesting that if things did not go their way, that they would withdraw their support for a side, or something to that effect. What's to prevent that? No one Squad should dictate the game or a side of the game.

And exactly who, seve large squads do you expect to get to spend a large amount of time driving equipment from the rear to the front line? I love this game and my side, and I would never do it.I have very limiyted play time when I can get on, and would have no interest at all in doing nothing but driving armor from one town to another. I can't imagine that new players would either, at least not for long. (Personally, even if we went to town supply I would not be in favor of overstocking towns)

For your plan to succeed, it would require a bunch of LARGE Squads working together to create some type of strategy, and then sticking to it. It also needs lone wolves to agree to follow the Squads lead.

I admit that I'm curious...How did either side actually win an entire campaign when there was no single leadership? I know some folks back then have stated that they had trouble even finding any action if they weren't in a large squad. But how did Squads coordinate? Was it basically a free for all, and look at the map and attack a town and hope for the best?

Wasn't side coordination the reason that HC was created in the first place?

Oh and if we did go to this system, I would hope that CRS change the capping minimum to somewhere between 3-5 attackers to cap a CP. It would help prevent 1 man town caps, and require a minimum amount of teamwork.

I am not against Squad play. I'm not against changing the HC...but I do want to see something in place that ensures side coordination, before we just scrap everything and go with an every Squad/man for himself system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When running tanks from rear towns was an option there were lots of players who never did it but there were plenty of players who loved it. It introduced another thread to the game and it also created ambush battles away from the towns.

Delivering aircraft to where they were needed actually awarded points to those that delivered the aircraft and therefore helped newer players to rank up.

This game is now all about delivering players as quickly as possible to a battle which without doubt becomes stale and boring to a lot of players because it involves just the one predictable mechanic.

The game needs more options opened up so that players feel that they have a choice in what they do.

Also the excessive warping in game has taken away a lot of the immersion, travelling with other players in a truck to get to a battle involved a good deal of banter which in itself was entertaining.

At present the game is too repetitive which can be likened to a laundry procedure .....dirty washing, into machine, switch on machine, wait for result and empty machine , move on to next pile of dirty washing.....repeat ad infinitum.....:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When running tanks from rear towns was an option there were lots of players who never did it but there were plenty of players who loved it. It introduced another thread to the game and it also created ambush battles away from the towns.

Delivering aircraft to where they were needed actually awarded points to those that delivered the aircraft and therefore helped newer players to rank up.

This game is now all about delivering players as quickly as possible to a battle which without doubt becomes stale and boring to a lot of players because it involves just the one predictable mechanic.

The game needs more options opened up so that players feel that they have a choice in what they do.

Also the excessive warping in game has taken away a lot of the immersion, travelling with other players in a truck to get to a battle involved a good deal of banter which in itself was entertaining.

At present the game is too repetitive which can be likened to a laundry procedure .....dirty washing, into machine, switch on machine, wait for result and empty machine , move on to next pile of dirty washing.....repeat ad infinitum.....:D

I completely agree. Variation in game play is the key to retaining players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am and always will be a legend in this game FEAR ME or LOVE ME your choice...... but HC is and always will be needed in this game without it there would be chaos.

Malvoc out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes I know its based on pop level, however my main point is when the player base online is "average" and there are two AOs up there should be a third.

The frontline is massive and the same with KGs/Brigades that are active and just sitting there ready to go. Plus its a a lot of supply that should be used.

Also I see nothing wrong with a more active frontline that does move more often to possible "ninja" caps of say 8-10 inf capping a 3-4 depot city, and we have plenty.

Players being funneled into only two possible battles imho takes away much from the game that could be expanded. And Im only talking of adding a third AO during "average" pop online.

Plus I feel very strongly that deception of attack objectives should play a role into the game and with only two AOs its completely lost. The days of sending small squads to move defensive positions from primary attack objectives for larger squads is gone and it could be brought back adding a third AO.

I understand the main goal to direct players into larger battles, I see nothing wrong with that however not all players want that do they ? A sense of capture and accomplishment is good for players and we see them return to play more often

Completely Disagree, If you look at TZ3 right now you see lack of player base beyond what this game can support(and is all about). We're not even filling 2 AO's each with players let alone 3.

So the end results are once again, empty towns and large sections of map changing hands that were not even fought over. Bad for the game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK.. please explain how there will be player coordination if there are no leaders except for Squad leaders, and there is no guarantee that squads will work together.

It's a big map, why do they need to work together unless they're fighting in the same area? They work together when they feel like it and they face the consequences for doing so or not, like every other game decision.

Will the culture of the game change so that non-Squad players are left out in the cold? We can't make anyone join a Squad, no matter how much some squad people would like to see that happen. And there are LOT of solo players, or players who just want to play with a buddy or two.

Non-HC are left out in the cold right now. Solo players will go to where the action is. This is so reliable that it's easy to control where the solo players go just by creating good spawns to a target. Solo players want to spawn in without hassle and go and shoot mans. If they want more they can join a squad.

In PS2 we run private squads to do the critical point holds and do set up, but we open up the spawns and turn on the spigot for the pubs eventually in every attack. A mass of pubs/lone wolfs is an incredible useful tool and only the bitterest of bitter vets don't run ops with that in mind.

Your EVE statement sort of reinforces my question. In EVE there is no real reason for corporations to work together. It is not just a two sided war environment. Each corp, at the end of the day, is only really out for itself. This is a WWII game. It will never be a game where each group is just out for itself.

The EVE statement applies to all those that like the high command system for the virtual hierarchy and roleplaying. At any rate there is a massive incentive for player groups to work together, it just happened yesterday as there was a large battle between CFC and a really complex amalgamation of tiny corps.

I have heard that in the past, some squads tried to dominate the game by suggesting that if things did not go their way, that they would withdraw their support for a side, or something to that effect. What's to prevent that? No one Squad should dictate the game or a side of the game.

HC needs squads, and all squads are nearly dead so under the current system a squad with 20 players on a squad night has immense influence, they can determine if prime time pushes or stagnates. So some relatively small squads already dominate the game because the game is so strapped for coordinated play.

Actually the current system locks in the influence because any upcoming squad can have it's agenda ruined(either inadvertently or purposely) by someone else in HC. The squads with officers in HC are always going to beat out the smaller newer squads that don't have anyone at the top of the ladder, and that is what the system intended it’s not a side effect.

And exactly who, seve large squads do you expect to get to spend a large amount of time driving equipment from the rear to the front line? I love this game and my side, and I would never do it.I have very limiyted play time when I can get on, and would have no interest at all in doing nothing but driving armor from one town to another. I can't imagine that new players would either, at least not for long. (Personally, even if we went to town supply I would not be in favor of overstocking towns)

Overstocking wouldn't be mandatory to be competitive like brigade rotation is so no one is forced to endure it, unlike now where there are constant calls to join HC and the #1 needed duty isn’t really grand strategy it’s someone to watch the map and rotate brigades as they get low.

New players might find driving in a huge convoy from town to town dull, but they are certainly not in favor of being thrown in to some meatgrinder AO. If they were then there would be much higher retention. More options for less-intense gameplay would really be helpful because currently there is nowhere you can take new players to train them or let them learn the equipment; it's nothing but being thrown in a box with some veteran with much better equipment that knows the terrain and all the exploits in the game. Soft caps were always popular because they would get new players rank and were a big rehearsal.

People's moods change too, sometimes players want to log on and go 110% playing the objective, other times they want to goof off, other times just pour a drink and banter while doing an easy task. In fact I've found "boring" downtime to be essentially to sustaining a group of players. In both PS2 and EVE the orgs that run hot all the time burn out both their leaders and members. That's a critical flaw of this game's HC as well, it's always on and never off which probably suits the handful admin types that log on for 30 minutes a day but wears everyone else out.

For your plan to succeed, it would require a bunch of LARGE Squads working together to create some type of strategy, and then sticking to it. It also needs lone wolves to agree to follow the Squads lead.

It happens every night in Planetside 2, many times an outfit platoon is really 4-5 squads of smaller outfits. I see it here too in the missions, 4+ squad tags on a mission with 12 people. If squads were bigger the same thing would

Also it happened here in the past, the iron wolves would guard the FB, windhund would go in to town, or maybe a large group like KGW/ASA would get their own AO while smaller squads would work a spoiler or hold down the defensive front(an important duty with 120 secs of spawn delay).

I admit that I'm curious...How did either side actually win an entire campaign when there was no single leadership? I know some folks back then have stated that they had trouble even finding any action if they weren't in a large squad. But how did Squads coordinate? Was it basically a free for all, and look at the map and attack a town and hope for the best?

There was plenty of leadership it was just organic instead of arbitrary.

Wasn't side coordination the reason that HC was created in the first place?

Safe to say that whatever reason was given by the previous devs for creating HC was flawed and doesn't matter anymore.

I am not against Squad play. I'm not against changing the HC...but I do want to see something in place that ensures side coordination, before we just scrap everything and go with an every Squad/man for himself system.

Well from the looks of things there isn't much of a choice, the HC system can't keep itself staffed, both HC and brigades can't handle lowpop and they also can't handle a sudden surge in population. Something like 400 per side (say from a successful Steam release and F2P promotion) would drain the brigades and exhaust the HC that can't please the current game population.

This subject hasn’t arisen from some lengthy self-reflection or some sudden epiphany, people are talking about how to operate without HC and brigades because the game is nonfunctional. So a squad with 20 players can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for better players, LOL.

Catfive, gassault, Jsilec, Pulfer, Malvoc, Dubane, Canukplf and many many others like that. Not even gonna include myself in there even though I'm often in top 5 killers when I play regularly. Bad bunch to mess with if you want my opinion. You've been playing axis for too long Mos. Not many paper-HCs left in AHC at the moment. I'd say most of our HCs are reserve HCs atm.

That's actually a problem I'd say. We have too many awesome players stuck doing the thankless jobs.

Oh and another David free-to-write wall of text = boring. No one gives a **** about EvE or planetfail 2.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catfive, gassault, Jsilec, Pulfer, Malvoc, Dubane, Canukplf and many many others like that. Not even gonna include myself in there even though I'm often in top 5 killers when I play regularly. Bad bunch to mess with if you want my opinion. You've been playing axis for too long Mos. Not many paper-HCs left in AHC at the moment. I'd say most of our HCs are reserve HCs atm.

That's actually a problem I'd say. We have too many awesome players stuck doing the thankless jobs.

Oh and another David free-to-write wall of text = boring. No one gives a **** about EvE or planetfail 2.

Be nice Lob

Certainly, I'd say the principle of Reserve (HC-lite) has proven its worth over the last few months, providing most of the HC play in game on the Allied side

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Be nice Lob

Certainly, I'd say the principle of Reserve (HC-lite) has proven its worth over the last few months, providing most of the HC play in game on the Allied side

Ah comon silky man he's been criticizing and bashing CRS/HCs non stop from his free account while hes actually a vet hiding under a new name. Its just annoying.

Who cares about a comparison with EvE and PS2? Keep pulling the same arguments over and over again.

All this "blabla squad AO, blabla platoon AO" is just drivel. Just imagine the man hours reworking the system lol.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, as long as we have ToES, we need a function like HC, be it player or Dev/GM run.

You cannot have a truck without a driver. You can't have units that can be deployed in specific layouts and not have a single mind/entity controlling the deployment; it would be nonsense, from a mechanic/game system point of view

To move away from HC, you have to move away from ToES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, as long as we have ToES, we need a function like HC, be it player or Dev/GM run.

You cannot have a truck without a driver. You can't have units that can be deployed in specific layouts and not have a single mind/entity controlling the deployment; it would be nonsense, from a mechanic/game system point of view

To move away from HC, you have to move away from ToES

This is exactly how I feel as well. The ToES need centralized direction.

Voting might work for low-pop emergency situations, but I just can't imagine how the map would evolve in a voting system with ToES. I feel like there would be many pockets and cutoffs occurring to both sides simultaneously lol.

As much as HC can be a burden, it's the only way the game can function in its current state. Whatever replacement system CRS comes up with is going to have to be revolutionary. I almost question whether a working alternative even exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would you do brigade moving by votes? You'd need to, at the same time: 1) facilitate rotation of low-interest brigades such as air wings and navals, 2) facilitate rotation of brigades that are away from active frontline parts and people don't care about 3) prevent someone from rotating brigades that nobody cares about *now* in a bad way (that screws fallbacks, makes tricky but unfavorable brigade positions..).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

===

To move away from HC, you have to move away from ToES

===

Maybe not. I've envisioned at the start of a map, the top 9 squads get a division, it is their division to move now - supply would still be open to all. (maybe at first, top 3 squads, each gets 3 divisions) There could be HC for AIR and SEA, and they could always move a LAND flag if no one was on from the squad - but their role would be minimal. (maybe give 8 away - leaving 1 for HC and newbs?) (or, at first, might just give an army to each of 2 squads; one gets 6th army and one 12th army; as squads grew, they would be divided into the KGs - so one squad gets 19th Korp, one gets 18th Korp, etc.)

These squads now control what the division/Korp/Army does. AOs would either go to 9 at all times (1 per division) or probably more likely, dynamic. If you get full EWS on a town it is auto AOd. This way the AOs grow as population grows. If 4 towns get full EWS, there are 4 AOs, if 2 towns, there are 2, etc. It also fosters competition among squads to recruit and get good leaders to lead good attacks, as then they'll get the AO.

A system like this promotes leaders and initiative. Squads would grow and people would naturally start leading and gravitating to the 'active' divisions/squads.

It would also promote people getting together, ad-hoc to AO a town as they just group up and get full EWS on it.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 AOs, 18 total? lulz

The ews thing ain't that bad I guess. But again. "full ews" can be tricky.

Edited by Lob12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trickier than what we have? Would probably have to be INF EWS only (thinking Zees) to really work right, and have to raise the full EWS level to maybe 12 troops/AA/trucks/ATGs.

Edited by delems

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
===

To move away from HC, you have to move away from ToES

===

Maybe not. I've envisioned at the start of a map, the top 9 squads get a division, it is their division to move now - supply would still be open to all. (maybe at first, top 3 squads, each gets 3 divisions) There could be HC for AIR and SEA, and they could always move a LAND flag if no one was on from the squad - but their role would be minimal. (maybe give 8 away - leaving 1 for HC and newbs?) (or, at first, might just give an army to each of 2 squads; one gets 6th army and one 12th army; as squads grew, they would be divided into the KGs - so one squad gets 19th Korp, one gets 18th Korp, etc.)

These squads now control what the division/Korp/Army does. AOs would either go to 9 at all times (1 per division) or probably more likely, dynamic. If you get full EWS on a town it is auto AOd. This way the AOs grow as population grows. If 4 towns get full EWS, there are 4 AOs, if 2 towns, there are 2, etc. It also fosters competition among squads to recruit and get good leaders to lead good attacks, as then they'll get the AO.

A system like this promotes leaders and initiative. Squads would grow and people would naturally start leading and gravitating to the 'active' divisions/squads.

It would also promote people getting together, ad-hoc to AO a town as they just group up and get full EWS on it.

Too many potential flaws for me.

ToES cannot work without a single mind deciding where to move, where to AO. If we want to move away from HC or AOs, we'd have to change from ToES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have played this game from the beginning and have watched it grow with many patches almost weekly back in the day. Joined hc this year because I see a need for players to step up and help make this game work only to get critizied for the job I was doing. You learn a whole new perspective in hc about the game you don't know exists and you have to toughen up and learn to take the critics and the people who think they know everything because they have played a long time. HC is an important part of the game and should be player based, it keeps the game from becoming a game of spawn, die, spawn, it puts real people in control, who make real mistakes, just like real war, some you will hate, some will do good , some bad but the draw to this game is we make the decisions, we actually on every campaign make a story, how it was fought , decisions made, key battles almost every campaign has a different story, there is not another game like this, it forces you to think, to try to be part of the whole, or become a lone wolf hero, one person can make a difference, a good squad can make a lot of difference, a good leader can make those differences even greater and we cant do that if we hand over leadership to other than those who enjoy the game. HC is a tough job, give those guys respect for even trying, cause those guys are the ones who truly love the game for what it is not for what everyone else wants it to be. raydr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have played this game from the beginning and have watched it grow with many patches almost weekly back in the day.

Joined hc this year because I see a need for players to step up and help make this game work only to get criticized for the job I was doing. You learn a whole new perspective in hc about the game you don't know exists and you have to toughen up and learn to take the critics and the people who think they know everything because they have played a long time.

HC is an important part of the game and should be player based. It keeps the game from becoming a game of spawn, die, spawn. It puts real people in control, who make real mistakes, just like real war, some you will hate, some will do good , some bad but the draw to this game is we make the decisions. Actually on every campaign we make a story, how it was fought, decisions made, key battles.... almost every campaign has a different story.

There is not another game like this, it forces you to think, to try to be part of the whole, or become a lone wolf hero. One person can make a difference, a good squad can make a lot of difference, a good leader can make those differences even greater... and we can't do that if we hand over leadership to other than those who enjoy the game.

HC is a tough job, give those guys respect for even trying, cause those guys are the ones who truly love the game for what it is not for what everyone else wants it to be.

raydr

Very well said Raydr. I also want to say thank you for stepping up into the HC role. It is often not only a thankless job, but one that draws a lot of criticism when things don't go well.

You may be my opponent, but more HC makes a stronger opponent, and a stronger opponent makes for a better game. For that I salute you.

S!

PS: paragraphs are a good thing and the enter key is your friend! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.